Prop 8: the silver lining

[Wyzaard]

God is neither arbitrary nor silly.

Pffft... ... to many here, such a being would be the epitome of both.

Using gender to refer to one's personal view of themselves and sex to refer to one's physical characteristics is both arbitrary and silly.

Not in the slightest... the vast majority of sex/gender studies have made such distinctions for quite some time now; I would suggest reading some Judith Butler, if you're up for it.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

My boyfriend Ben and I were discussing the implications of the latest amendments and elections last night during breaks in my World of Warcraft raids. We came to the conclusion that there is indeed a silver lining to the Prop 8 business.

Look Gheys, it is disappointing that Prop 8 passed. I think we can all agree on that. However I think we're forgetting the bigger picture. We've had 27 setbacks so far BUT two states have made progress.

Two you say? Why yes, Same-sex marriage will begin on November 12th in Connecticut. While the Fundamentalist "Christians" were focusing on California (and with their sleazy satanesque tactics, winning a slim majority there), they completely forgot about another possible anti-gay amendment in another state.

Connecticut is a curious state when it comes to peoples' amendments. According to their constitution the question of adding or taking away an amendment only comes up once every 20 years. Now when it was reported (sparsely on national networks) that there would indeed be same-sex marriage legalized in Connecticut I happened to look up if this was the year the option to amend would come up. Unfortunately it was.

I remembered thinking "aww great another landslide victory for hatemongers". After hearing the results from California however I was pleasantly STUNNED to learn Connecticut voters had rejected adding discrimination to their constitution. Now it appears same-sex marriage is all but secure there. Fortunately Connecticut like Massachusetts, has a ponderous amendment process. Time favors Teh Ghey rights movement in that respect. Once same-sex marriage goes through the more time there is between the first marriages and the next amendment cycle the less likely it is the lying "Christians" can dupe (through lies) a majority to pass it.

2nd silver lining: The hard part is over.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm pleased to report that Colorado has sent Marilyn Musgrave packing. Musgrave is the original sponsor of the hateful Federal Marriage Amendment and she introduces the bill every session. In the latest election Northern Colorado voters have politely told her to "drop dead" and elected a Democrat to her seat.

Moreover: Democrats now control the House, Senate, Executive, and soon (God willing) the Courts. The chances that a divisive anti-gay amendment bill even reaches the floor? Between Slim and none and Slim just left town. We've fought the pro-hates to a stalemate with this election. I suggest we use the next four years to overturn as many state laws and amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage as possible before the next election cycle.

I think the problem you have is that you don't see marriage as a special right with special guidelines. Marriage is in itself a special right because of its defining factors and its relation with religion. You can't just throw all that away and claim it for yourself and go against what many of the voters believe.

and everyone technically CAN get married if they want,,, its just that they chose things in their lifestyle that make them unable to at the moment. Any man with homosexual urges can marry a woman and start a family. So no one is really being forced, its just that they chose things in their life and make them unable to

 

[Trevorocity]

I think the problem you have is that you don't see marriage as a special right with special guidelines. Marriage is in itself a special right because of its defining factors and its relation with religion. You can't just throw all that away and claim it for yourself and go against what many of the voters believe.

and everyone technically CAN get married if they want,,, its just that they chose things in their lifestyle that make them unable to at the moment. Any man with homosexual urges can marry a woman and start a family. So no one is really being forced, its just that they chose things in their life and make them unable to

Actually you just identified the two reasons the state shouldn't be involved in defining marriage in the first place: gives special rights to ONE set of people (heterosexuals) AND involves the state in a religious matter.

Addendum: the argument that "gays are perfectly free marry the opposite sex and therefore be entitled to the same special rights and privaleges as straights" is silly. Its as if I told you you weren't allowed to be a Christian but you are perfectly free to choose to be a Muslim, the same as everyone else.

 

[corvus_corax]

Question proposed-

Ask a child if they would rather have a mother and father or something else?
And if you will, ask this of a child not already in gay situation.

Question answered-

I grew up with heterosexual sexual foster parents that were horrible.I would have traded them for a loving Gay or Lesbian couple.BTW 2 of their kids ended up Gay ,One was their own and the other was adopted.

Now that the question has been answered, will you stop asking it PC_F?

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Actually you just identified the two reasons the state shouldn't be involved in defining marriage in the first place: gives special rights to ONE set of people (heterosexuals) AND involves the state in a religious matter.

Addendum: the argument that "gays are perfectly free marry the opposite sex and therefore be entitled to the same special rights and privaleges as straights" is silly. Its as if I told you you weren't allowed to be a Christian but you are perfectly free to choose to be a Muslim, the same as everyone else.

but marriage IS a special right with special requirements, both sexual and family wise like monogamy and child rearing and because of its defining factors unlike freedom of religion. Imagine what the world would be like if people started changing the definitions and meanings of tons of words simply because it didn't agree with them. There would be chaos to the stability of the people. Prop 8 was needed for the stability of the people and of marriage, but most importantly for the wellbeing of our future children that they be brought up with the best chances of having both a mother and a father.

and its not against a "certain people". Again men or women with homosexual urges can get married if they want. Your making a CONSCIOUS choice to do something that makes you ineligible for marriage.

 

[corvus_corax]

Your making a CONSCIOUS choice to do something that makes you ineligible for marriage.

Is this the whole "homosexuality is a conscious choice" argument, or am I completely misunderstanding you?

 

[Trevorocity]

but marriage IS a special right with special requirements, both sexual and family wise like monogamy and child rearing and because of its defining factors unlike freedom of religion. Imagine what the world would be like if people started changing the definitions and meanings of tons of words simply because it didn't agree with them. There would be chaos to the stability of the people. Prop 8 was needed for the stability of the people and of marriage, but most importantly for the wellbeing of our future children that they be brought up with the best chances of having both a mother and a father.

and its not against a "certain people". Again men or women with homosexual urges can get married if they want. Your making a CONSCIOUS choice to do something that makes you ineligible for marriage.

If the definition of a word needs to change then it changes. Plain and simple.

The rest of your comment is unsupported lies.

 

[Atlantians]

If the definition of a word needs to change then it changes. Plain and simple.

The rest of your comment is unsupported lies.

It is an institution not a word.

And you have no right to claim that his comment is unsupported lies without demonstrating that they are A: lies and B: unsupported.

Just stating it makes it look as if you can't refute them and are just calling whatever you disagree with "lies".

There aren't even two sexes, much less only two genders.

http://frank.mtsu.edu/~phollowa/5sexes.html

Wow an article that says nothing that I do not already know and in no way demonstrates how anything I have said has been incorrect. Rather it repeats the same errors made by those arguing in this thread. I am impressed.

Wow, so insightful there. 'Deformation' according to whom? Why would this significant even if it were so?

Is Downes syndrome a deformation?
Growing multiple fingers? Multiple legs? Chimeraism?

They are deformations because they are improper formations. Distortions of how the structure should develop as.

Not in the slightest... the vast majority of sex/gender studies have made such distinctions for quite some time now; I would suggest reading some Judith Butler, if you're up for it.

And I already said that I reject the silliness of the term misuse. Invent a new term if you want to describe a new thing please.

If that is your opinion of it.

Some people are born looking perfectly female, but actually have XY chromosomes and contain internal testes. What sex and what gender are they?

They would be female with a genetic deformity resulting in useless male parts.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Does this thread really have to be here on a Christian forum site?

This has so much comment that is completely contrary to Biblical teachings and Christian values that I personally think it has no place here. Free speech is important- but so are the majority wishes of participants here and the site administrators.

 

[SiderealExalt]

If you don't like the subject of the thread, no one is stopping you from not reading it.

 

[WatersMoon110]

They would be female with a genetic deformity resulting in useless male parts.

Uh, seriously? You are going with how someone looks, and not their Chromosomes?

I mean, I expected maybe "male", since genetically, this would be a male person.

So, if a male gets a sex change operation, and looks female, does that make them female? Since, as you said, it's all about looks.

What about poor David Reimer, who lost his penis in a tragic circumcision accident, and was raised as a female until puberty? Was he male or female?

 

[Trevorocity]

It is an institution not a word.

And you have no right to claim that his comment is unsupported lies without demonstrating that they are A: lies and B: unsupported.

Just stating it makes it look as if you can't refute them and are just calling whatever you disagree with "lies".

Do some catch up reading. Its what we call PRATT (Point Refuted a Thousand Times). Children do fine in same-gender headed families.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Prop 8: the silver lining

Christians from the Black Church, Catholic and manistream Evangelicalism united.

And maybe, just maybe, if the Mormons connect with Bible-affirming Christians, they to will be connected to all three.

A true silver lining?

Actually gold.

 

[brightmorningstar]

With reference to the 'fundamental Christians' in the OP. Same sex unions are excluded and comdemned in God's Biblical testimony (Gen 2. Gen 10, Lev 18 & 20, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 5-7, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1 etc) so whoever if non fundamental Christians believe this, they need to repent and start believing to follow Jesus Christ.

 

[Polycarp1]

Of course, we know that God believes in the "one man and one woman" theory, because He moved Laban to give Jacob Leah to wife and refuse him Rachel, since Jacob already had one wife. And Jacob fathered six sons on Leah. Then there was a famine in the land, and Jacob's six sons went down to Egypt to trade for grain, but they were turned away, for Egypt had not prepared for the famine either, and had no grain to trade. And they came back to their father, and they all died in the famine. No survivors of Judah, no King David, no Jesus descended from his line. Just an incident in the legends of Palestine, a small footnote about a family that died off. Sad -- almost as sad as legalism enforced by the tyranny of the majority.

 

[stan1980]

What about poor David Reimer, who lost his penis in a tragic circumcision accident, and was raised as a female until puberty? Was he male or female?

Jesus, what a story, poor guy!

 

[selfinflikted]

Jesus, what a story, poor guy!

Isnt' that the one who, later in life, commited suicide because of it all?

 

[stan1980]

Isnt' that the one who, later in life, commited suicide because of it all?

Yeah, sounds like it. I don't know how the doctors thought they were going to get away with it, but I suppose the poor kid was screwed either way.

 

[Trevorocity]

With reference to the 'fundamental Christians' in the OP. Same sex unions are excluded and comdemned in God's Biblical testimony (Gen 2. Gen 10, Lev 18 & 20, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 5-7, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1 etc) so whoever if non fundamental Christians believe this, they need to repent and start believing to follow Jesus Christ.

PRATT

 

[WatersMoon110]

With reference to the 'fundamental Christians' in the OP. Same sex unions are excluded and comdemned in God's Biblical testimony (Gen 2. Gen 10, Lev 18 & 20, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 5-7, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1 etc) so whoever if non fundamental Christians believe this, they need to repent and start believing to follow Jesus Christ.

Oh yeah, I forgot those lost words of Jesus: "condemn others and don't let two men marry." *rolls eyes*

Jesus said that His Followers would be recognized by their love. Should I claim that many Fundamentalist Christians fail and this, and should learn to be loving to others so that they can become true Followers of Jesus, the Christ?